the device used by the appellee, which appelh\nts insist is covered by theh reissue, if the reissued patent covers it, it is broader thllll the original and is therefore void. Even if a patentee has a right to a reissue if applied for in seasonable time, the right may be lost by his laches and unreasonable delay. Where it is shown that the invention which appellants contend was covered by the original patent had been in general use long before the date of its issue, the patent is invalid. Thomas Bracken and B. F. Butler, for appellants. Andrew McCallum and S. D. Law, for appellee. Cases Cited in the opinion: Giant Powder Co. v. Cal. Vigoret Powder Co. 6 Sawy. 508; S. C. :> Fed. Rep. 197; Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126; Ball v. Langles, 102 U. S. 128; James v. Campbell, S Morr. Tr.438; :Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co. ld. 419.
Patent for Inventions-License. MELLON 1'. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. Co., U. S. Sup. ct. Oct. Term, 1881. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania. The decision on appeal was rendered by the supreme court of the United States on April 3, 1882, Mr. Justice Woods delivering the opinion, affirming the decree of the circuit court. Where the case turns upon a single fact, as whether or not a license was absolute and unconditional, as it appears on its face, the burden of proof is on him who asserts the affirmative, and if the weight of evidence is against him the decree dismissing the bill charging an infringement will be affirmed. H. T. Fenton and Furman Sheppard, for appellants.
MISSOURI PAOIFIO RY.OO.
iPAOIFIO RAILROAD (of Missouri) 'D. MISSOURI PAOIFIC Ry. CO. and others.
(Circuit Oourt, E. D. Mi88ouri.
On a bill for relief against a decree obtained by fraud, no relief will be granted if complainant had knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, and in the exercise of due diligence might have made them known to the court pending the original suit; nor if complainant might, by the use of due diligence, have ascertained the facts and pleaded them in the original suit. 20
SAME-BILL OF RELIEF.
A bill seeking relief from a decree obtained by fraud must allege that complainant had no knowledge of the fraud now alleged, and no notice thereof at the time of the original suit. 3.
CORPORATION-KNOWLEDGE OF STOCKHOLDERS.
Upon the question of notice there is no distinction between the corporation and its officers or stockholders; so, if stockholders were advised of the foreclosure suit, and of the facts now charged as constituting fraud in the execution of the bonds and mortgages sued on in the original suit, and had an opportunity to intervene and defend, and did not do so, the corporation is concluded by their laches.
l:lTOCKHOLDER-LACHEs-L088 OF REMEDY.
Where the stockholders, haVing full knowledge of all the facts and an opportunity to move in the original suit before decree, or to file a bill immediately upon the rendition of the decree, failed to do ei ther for a period of four years, and in the mean time the decree had been fully executed, the property sold thereunder to a new company and the sale confirmed, and the stock and bonds of the new company gone into the market, it is too late for them to obtain relief from a decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud.
Bill in Equity to set aside a decree of this court for fraud. Glover d Shepley, for complainant. Mehille G. Day, J. O. Broadhead, and Tkos. J. Portis, for respond. ents. MOCRARY, C. J. This is either an original bill to impeach a decree of this court for fraud, or a bill of review upon newly-discovered facts and evidellce. We think it is the former; and as that is in accordance with the claim of complainant's counsel, we will so regard it, remarking, however, that if it be the latter it is clearly bad, because filed too late, and also becaulre filed without the leave of the court. Ricker v. Pou'ell, 100 U. S. 109; Story, Eq. PI. §§ 412-414. Considered as an original bill, is it sufficient? Courts of equity have undoubted jurisdiction to entertain bills to set aside judgments at law or decrees in ohancery on the ground of fI·aud. The rules by which the sufficiency of such bills are to be determined are the same, v.12,no.8-41 .